Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DEC proposes moving Cascade trailhead to Mt Van Ho

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Here's the proposed reroute from page 103 of the draft UMP. Approx 5 miles of new trail (per page 93 of the draft UMP). Cascade as a 10+ mile hike should certainly change it's status as #1 choice for first High Peak people climb.



    Comment


    • #17
      Sounds like a great idea, and a lot of work that should pay off over time (the Cascade trail re-route, that is... a lot of the rest was the nonsensical spawn of big state gov't bureaucracy)

      Now, can we please get a f*ing fix for the Opalescent marsh and Cliff??? Every time I read about some new project that doesn't involve those two areas I start wondering if somebody's been slipping me crazy pills.

      Edit: And this article right here: https://poststar.com/blogs/adirondac...3aa04e4dc.html ... nonsense. If one of my college students ever submitted something for publication with that level of drawn conclusions vs. documented evidence they'd find themselves rewriting it. Of course they'd never submit something like this because they posses the ability to think for themselves. If the state wants to continue defining "capacity" by parking spaces (under some misguided assumption that X cars = Y hikers) we're never going to see any real progress. This conversation has been taking place for decades and somehow the powers to be still cannot see the difference between overuse and misuse.
      My mind was wandering like the wild geese in the west.

      Comment


      • Makwa
        Makwa commented
        Editing a comment
        To be fair the draft UMP does a much better job separating the difference between parking lots and hikers and overuse and carrying capacity than any of the numerous articles I've read have which refer to the car counting study. The articles (and I suppose the study) are conflating cars/parking problem which is primarily a safety issue with overuse/misuse on the resource next to them. No mention of empty lots on weekdays or rainy days or in the winter. The total usage of the areas in question and the issues in each of them is totally separate from the parking issue on weekends in my view. The draft UMP recognizes that and from what I've read so far does not draw a direct correlation between higher usage and degradation of the resource.

        I find the car counting study interesting though. The simplistic nature of just counting x cars in a given areas with y parking spots clearly demonstrates a need to develop infrastructure to handle the overflow. It does not show misuse of the resource though. That's all supposition.

    • #18
      Overuse has become a (overly simplistic) catch-all meme. Say it enough and everyone believes it.
      Someone takes a crap trail-side? overuse. Not enough parking at the TH? overuse. The herd Path to Tabletop is a mud wallow? overuse.

      Comment


      • Makwa
        Makwa commented
        Editing a comment
        The Adirondack version of fake news.

        There's no doubt there are more hikers and outdoor enthusiasts flooding the Adirondacks over the past 10 years. They've shown that in multiple other ways over the years. Now it's time to pay the piper and find a way to handle all of the them safely, give them places to park, facilities to properly dispose of their waste, and educational materials to help them all understand their impact on the overall system. Oh... and throw in some more Rangers to rescue them when they're lost, enforce all the rules we have in place, and to serve as an educational resource in the backcountry.

        But yes... overuse is an easy way to explain away every issue.
    Working...
    X